Hart v. Parker
N19C-01-087 CLS
| Del. Super. Ct. | Oct 29, 2019Background:
- Car collision on January 13, 2017 involving Daniel Parker and Nancy Hart; Plaintiffs allege negligence and injuries.
- Daniel Parker died on or about May 10, 2017.
- Plaintiffs filed suit on January 10, 2019 against "The Estate of Daniel Parker" and others; no estate for Parker had been opened.
- Delaware law (12 Del. C. § 2102) bars tort claims against a decedent’s estate unless presented within eight months of death under § 2104; Plaintiffs did not present a claim within that period.
- Plaintiffs contend Parker’s insurer failed to notify them of Parker’s death as required by 18 Del. C. § 3914 and that insurer conduct estops Defendant from asserting the limitations defense.
- The Court granted the Estate’s motion to dismiss: Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred under § 2102 and no estate exists to be sued or opened now for these untimely claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suit against "Estate of Daniel Parker" may proceed when no estate was opened and claim not presented within 8 months under 12 Del. C. § 2102 | Hart: insurer’s failure to notify delayed knowledge; thus suit should proceed | Estate: no estate exists and claims must be presented within 8 months; dismissal warranted | Dismissed — § 2102 bars claims not presented within 8 months; no estate exists to sue |
| Whether insurer’s failure to notify under 18 Del. C. § 3914 estops Estate from asserting the limitations defense | Hart: insurer didn’t give statutorily required notice, so Estate should be estopped from asserting time bar | Estate: § 3914 inapplicable; insurer is not a party; plaintiffs filed within two-year statute anyway | Rejected — court applied § 2102’s eight-month bar irrespective of notice; § 3914 did not save the claim |
| Whether equitable estoppel prevents dismissal because insurer negotiated as if Parker were alive | Hart: insurer’s conduct indicated Parker was alive; equitable estoppel should apply | Estate: no record insurer knew of death; equitable estoppel not supported | Rejected — no evidence insurer knew of death; equitable estoppel inapplicable; plaintiffs could have sought to open an estate earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029 (Del. 1989) (motion-to-dismiss standard: accept well-pleaded facts and draw inferences for nonmoving party)
- Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (standard for denying a motion to dismiss when plaintiff can prove any facts entitling relief)
- Witco Corp. v. Beekhuis, 822 F. Supp. 1084 (D. Del. 1993) (interpretation that § 2102’s eight-month bar applies regardless of plaintiff’s knowledge of decedent’s death)